3 total
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving offences because he rebutted the presumption of care and control and posed no realistic risk of danger.
The accused, a long-haul truck driver, was found seated in the driver's seat of his idling tractor-trailer at 1:45 AM after an evening of drinking.
He was arrested for care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and for having more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
The Crown relied on the rebuttable presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code that occupying the driver's seat creates a presumption of care and control.
The accused testified he had no intention to drive, had parked the vehicle for the night, and was merely eating chicken wings while waiting to sleep.
The court found the accused rebutted the presumption and that there was no realistic risk of danger, resulting in acquittal on both charges.
A motion to enforce a settlement agreement was dismissed because the moving party accepted the responding party's repudiation by proposing a new price.
The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce an alleged settlement agreement for the purchase and sale of shares in a private corporation.
The court found that a binding agreement was initially formed through an exchange of emails for the purchase of shares for $100,000.
However, the defendant subsequently breached this agreement by failing to take steps to implement it.
The court further found that the plaintiff, in response to the defendant's breach, accepted the defendant's repudiation of the contract by proposing a new, lower purchase price of $98,800.
This action by the plaintiff terminated the original agreement, discharging both parties from further obligations under it.
Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for judgment to enforce the original $100,000 settlement agreement was dismissed.
Oppression claim dismissed, but share valuation and buyout ordered under just and equitable provisions.
The applicant, a minority shareholder and former employee of a closely-held corporation, sought an oppression remedy or winding up order against the majority shareholder.
The applicant alleged oppressive conduct regarding unilateral business expansion decisions and his subsequent exclusion from the company.
The court dismissed the oppression claim, finding the applicant's reasonable expectations were not breached and he had voluntarily withdrawn from the business.
However, finding that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down, the court granted relief under the 'just and equitable' provisions of s. 207 of the Business Corporations Act, ordering a trial of an issue to determine the fair market value of the applicant's shares and the terms of their purchase.
